Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Arguing the Ban
I was at the Supreme Court today, and based on what I heard, I have every expectation that the Court will soon restore the Second Amendment to the District of Columbia.
Everything I saw in court shows the District's ban on functional firearms is out of sync with American history. The arguments today clearly indicated the Second Amendment is an individual, and not a collective, right. The District's attorneys spent their time swimming upstream against the U.S. Constitution.
In Washington, D.C., the law is simple. Once a gun becomes usable, it becomes illegal. That means when your window breaks at 2 a.m. and you're facing an armed criminal heading towards your bedroom, the politicians in D.C. want you to just call 911 and pray help arrives before it's too late.
That's why the District's law isn't just unconstitutional, it's unreasonable. The D.C. Gun Ban has been on the books for decades and hasn't increased public safety. In fact, the crime rate has skyrocketed. When you couple the gun ban with the District's revolving-door criminal justice system, it's open season on honest people.
The District seeks the supremacy of the government. The NRA believes that individual freedom is of the utmost importance in our country. The idea that the government can protect you from all harm is a fantasy. Even the beat cops, the law enforcement officers who risk their lives every day, will tell you that.
This case is ultimately about the good people in society, and what rights they have to protect themselves against those who ignore our laws. It's about whether the good people will have their God-given right of self defense returned to them. And after what we've seen today, I'm confident the Second Amendment will soon return to the District.
From the Brady Campaign:
Today, the Justices of the Supreme Court thoroughly discussed the Second Amendment of the Constitution for the first time in nearly 70 years, in the District of Columbia v. Heller case. Their probing questions, and the lawyers' responses, highlighted the complex history and competing approaches to gun regulation in our country. I am hopeful that their ruling will uphold the right of people in communities like the District to enact common sense gun measures they feel are needed to protect themselves and their families.
"One of the reasons we have weak or nearly non-existent gun laws today is because a lot of politicians, and many citizens, think the Second Amendment limits our ability to enact common sense gun restrictions. Today's arguments, however, demonstrated broad support from all sides for responsible regulations concerning guns.
"Think how much safer we all would be if we made it harder for dangerous people to get dangerous weapons nationwide, not just in a few areas."
A complete defacto ban being "reasonable" vs "unreasonable".
Individualism vs Collectivism.
Self-Reliance vs Dependence
Common man vs the "Elite"
That's what the debate really boils down to doesn't it?
At least Paul had the intelligence to add a qualifier to his earlier "non-existent" laws claim.
Update: The Videos. NRA v BC
2 comments:
"One of the reasons we have weak or nearly non-existent gun laws today is because a lot of politicians, and many citizens, think the Second Amendment limits our ability to enact common sense gun restrictions."
Yeah, like the First Amendment limits my ability to have to listen to your drivel.
If all of the thousands upon thousands of federal and state laws regulating firearms are "nearly non-existent", I shudder to think what he would qualify as "really existing".
Of course, why do I think that I (a law-abiding citizen with a clean record - not even a speeding ticket) would qualify as a "dangerous person" in his book, simply because I own a firearm, and want to own more...?
Of course, I do share his hope ("I am hopeful that their ruling will uphold the right of people in communities like the District to enact common sense gun measures they feel are needed to protect themselves and their families.")... the only difference is, in my book, that means arming yourself if you see fit, and not arming yourself if you do not.
Post a Comment